Divine Insinuation in The 'Panegyrici Latini'

Divine Insinuation in the "Panegyrici Latini"
Author(s): Barbara Saylor Rodgers

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 35, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1986), pp. 69-104
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435950
Accessed: 17-05-2017 05:22 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
DIVINE INSINUATION IN THE PANEGYRICI LATINI
Panegyrists and propagandists of the Late Empire insisted that there was a
special relationship between sovereign and divinity; extravagant insistence
seemed even to claim living deification for one ruler or another. When first-
century emperors (Gaius, Nero, Domitian) displayed their megalomania even
the ancients rejected their pretensions as soon as they safely could. One
occasionally hears nowaday that reports of their dementia may have been
exaggerated, that a later hostile tradition has inflated, if not invented, rumors
of their mad masquerades. Third- and fourth-century emperors may not so
easily be dismissed. In the first place, assertions of divinity by human beings
are repugnant to modern minds, and recent students of ancient history have
sought to reconcile their perception of an otherwise decent person, Diocletian
for example, with this abhorrent aberration by arguing away the aberration. A
second obstacle is the desire for order and consistency, although it requires
considerable ingenuity to reduce the mass of conflicting evidence about the
ruler-cult to a coherent system. Finally, one is struck by the absence of a
conflict over the emperor's status in the fourth century: the concept of rule by
divine grace became current so easily that it must not have had to supplant an
idea of rule by divinity.
Since no whole can cohere unless its parts fit together, I have chosen to
examine in this paper a small bit of evidence, eleven of the encomiastic orations
known as the Panegyrici Latini.1 The various speeches, even those addressed to
the same emperor, display no single, common theme, but they almost all reveal
a measure of ambiguity. The development of the ruler-cult during the first
three centuries of our era is not at issue here. The progression from princeps to
dominus was not linear; the apparent excesses of Domitian almost required the
apparent civility of Trajan. The notion of the emperor's superhuman stature
insinuated itself slowly into the minds of men; it needed a century of
turbulence and fear to settle itself in. When the night of the Principate had
passed, a figure emerged from the shadows of dawn: Diocletian, looking for all
the world like an eastern potentate.
l There is one similar discussion, that of J. Beranger, MH 27 (1970) 242-254 (= Beranger). His
brief review does not always do justice to the evidence in the Panegyrici, and I cannot agree with
some of his conclusions. J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion
(1979) (= Liebeschuetz) comments upon several of the Panegyrici: VIII, X, XI (237-243), XII
(285-288), IV (288-291), II (301-302). The panegyrics (both these and others) are part of a grander
whole in S. G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (1981) (= MacCormack).
Historia, Band XXXV/1 (1986) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart
70 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
There were those in the fourth century who credited Diocletian with
instigating emperor-worship (Aurelius Victor 39.4, Eutropius 9.26). But
inflation had affected the imperial cult as well as the currency; one ought
perhaps to claim that Diocletian attempted to restore soundness to both. He
invented neither. Although Aurelian said that he was chosen by god to be
emperor, on some of his coins (as on issues later under Probus and Carus) are
the words Dominus et Deus. No one denies that third-century emperors
invoked sanctity of person as a defense against assassination, but whether
Aurelian or anyone else wanted to be considered a god is open to doubt.2
The ruler-cult was unquestionably a political device, although politics and
religion had united since early Republican times in the Pax Deorum. It is
difficult to separate the two at any period. Apotheosis was not only a means of
honoring dead rulers: an emperor with one or more divine ancestors enjoyed a
powerful dynastic claim and appeared to be more than mortal. Septimius
Severus employed this principle when he had himself adopted into the line of
Marcus Aurelius; Constantine used Claudius Gothicus (Pan. Lat. 6.2.2.).
Diocletian, on the other hand, found a divine parent in Jupiter himself.3
Ensslin has formulated three possibilities for the position of the emperor: he
might be either a god, the agent of the divine spirit, or god's personally chosen
ruler.4 In any case, the emperor is more than a man. Although all three of these
conceptions appear in some form in the Panegyrici Latini, the panegyrists most
often resort to the first two ideas, and they often employ both in the same
speech.
2 Compare for example the opposing views of E. Kornemann, Klio 1 (1901) 136, and N. H.
Baynes, JRS 25 (1935) 84. Baynes and A. D. Nock, HTR 23 (1930) 264, both find one piece of
evidence conclusive against a view of emperor as god in the late third century: the story (in Muller,
FGH 4.197) that Aurelian told his soldiers that god had chosen him emperor and fixed the length
of his rule. The evidence of Aurelian's coins points to the opposite conclusion. See Dessau, ILS
585, 5687 for inscriptions, and RIC 5:1.264, 299 nos. 305-306; legends include IMP DEO ET
DOMINO AVRELIANO AVG, DEO ET DOMINO NATO AVRELIANO AVG, SOL
DOMINVS IMPERI ROMANI. W. Kubitschek, Num. Zeitschr. 8 (1915) 167-178, however,
denies any official authority to this coinage, all of which was minted at Serdica or Siscia. He
attributes the legend domino et deQ to the initiative of the workers at the mint. For relevant coinage
of Probus and Carus see RIC 5:2.19, 109 no. 841, 114 no. 885 (DEO ET DOMINO PROBO
INVICTO AVG); 133,145 no. 96,146 nos. 99-100 (DEO ET DOMINO CARO INVIC AVG,
DEO ET DOMINO CARO AVG).
3MacCormack 106-107 describes the departure under the Tetrarchs from dependence upon
consecratio, and kinship with one's (now divine) predecessor: "Death could add nothing."
4Ensslin (CAH 12.387, SB Munich, Phil.-hist. KI. [1943] Heft 6, 49-50) says that it does not
matter which formulation came closest to the truth. MacCormack 168-196 details the involvement
of the divine in the election of an emperor.
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 71
As a preface to the examination of individual works, a look at the

panegyrists' vocabulary5 is tedious but necessary. In all of the Panegyrici,
divinus is the adjective which the orators most commonly use to describe
things both celestial and imperial. It occurs far more often than sacer or
sacratus and their superlatives; sacratissimus, for example, usually appears in
the vocative, sacratissime imperator; sacer, having acquired an official meaning,
was rendered encomiastically useless, although it does appear in the speeches.
Divinus often has this imperial connotation as well.6 All of the orators use
divinus to modify the emperor's mental attributes, other abstract nouns, and,
occasionally, human beings. As a general rule, if one can substitute sacer for
divinus without damage to the sense, divinus means "imperial." For example,7
divinarum aurium aditus (8.1.5) is a royal hearing. Sometimes divinus stands
for "wonderful," or "exceptional," equivalent to praeclarus: Fausta's beauty
(7.6.2) is one example, and cuius umquam diviniorfelicitas fuit? (3.27.1) may
be translated, "who ever had more incredible luck?."
Divinus also pertains to the gods. One orator says divina res (10.6.5) for
"sacrifice." It is usually clear from the context what divinus means, for
example at 10.4.2, where it is said that Diocletian could not have restored the
republic without help (divinum modo ac ne id quidem sufficeret auxilium);
Maximian played the part of Hercules helping Jupiter in his war against the
giants. The transition from earthly problems to heavenly ones takes place
within one sentence and the orator really means "divine" in this instance.
The orators represent the emperors' power, or an emperor himself, with two
abstract nouns, divinitas and maiestas.8 The author of VIII is particularly fond
of both words and frequently uses them as polite periphrases for tu or vos
(e. g., 8.2.1, 8.5.3; but compare 8.2.3). On the other hand, Constantine's
outward appearance is as beautiful as his divinity is certain (6.17.4). Divinitas
and maiestas, like divinus, retain at least two meanings, the original one of
divinity and majesty, and an imperial or formulaic meaning, which one can
To which not all scholars attach equal weight. For example, Beranger 246-247 and nn. 33-34,
cites the TLL definition (see n. 6) of divinus = imperialis, and assumes as well that the adjective
"souligne plus la d6pendance que l'identit6." Cf. G. Herzog-Hauser, RE Suppl. 4 (1924) 851.
6 TLL 5:1.7.1623, 34-71 i. q. imperialis, regius, de vivo et consecrato principe, necnon de domo
Augustorum.
The lists in the Appendix contain many examples from all the speeches, arranged in two
categories, depending on whether the word modifies emperor or divinity. I have omitted the word
caelestis from consideration here, but included it in the Appendix. It has about the same range of
meaning as divinius, although it occurs infrequently, and its usage underwent the same changes.
8 Cf. also sanctitas (I 1.19.3) and Diocletian's divina majestas (Dessau, ILS 627). M. P. Charles-
worth, HTR 29 (1936) 107-132, has shown that by the end of the second century, aeternitas had
also become an attribute of the emperor.
represent either by the English expression "your majesty," or by some other

suitable word such as imperium (as at 7.3.2; see Appendix for further
examples).
Pliny employed the word numen exclusively (at least in the Panegyricus) for
references to the divine: e. g. 1.1.4-5, 1.2.3, 1.33.4. The word retained this
meaning in the third and fourth centuries; in the Panegyrici it usually means
divinity or divine power; occasionally, the will of an emperor. Duncan
Fishwick has rightly argued, against Pippidi and others, that the numen and
the genius of the emperor are not identical.9 I do not, however, agree with his
conclusion that the attribution of a numen to the emperor was purely
honorific.'0 The use of numen was flattery no more empty than any other of its
sort.
The authors of the Panegyrici sometimes equate the emperor and his
numen; the expressions numen tuum or numen illius appear, like divinitas and
maiestas, instead of tu, ille. 1 One orator says that Maximian reports his actions
to his colleague's numen (10.9.1); when another speaks of a ship which carried
the emperor's numen, he means the emperor's person (8.19.1). At other times
numen is a divine attribute of the emperor, as at 11.10.4, when the emperors'
numen shone forth from the Alps, or in a reference to their presence (aures
tanti numinis: 6.1.1).
The two categories may overlap. Does the speaker mean the emperor
himself or the emperor's divine aspect when he says veneratio numinis tui
(10.1.1)? Numen is also used of an emperor no longer living (Divus Claudius at
6.2.1).
Several of the orators call the gods numina, and in almost every case numen
may be replaced by deus. For example, 10.11.6 contains a reference to gods in
general, 9.9.4 to Minerva and Apollo. At 11.14.2, though, Jupiter's numen is a
separate aspect of the god. Numen as it appears in the Panegyrici means any or
all of the following: 1. Godhead, divinity, divine power; applied to various
deities and to emperors; 2. A god; 3. An emperor; replacing a pronoun or a
proper name; sometimes formulaic: cf. divinitas, maiestas.
In the Appendix I have listed the places where the words divinus, caelestis,
divinitas, maiestas, and numen appear in the Panegyrici, and I have indicated,
perhaps arbitrarily in some instances, where divinus may be replaced by sacer
or by praeclarus, where divinitas, maiestas and numen replace a pronoun.
Although they appear in formulaic phrases, none of these words has become so
' D. Fishwick, HTR 62 (1969) 356-367; D. M. Pippidi, REL 8 (1930) 136-137; cf. Pfister, RE
17:2 (1937) 1286-1287.
'? Fishwick, op. cit. (n. 9) 364-365; cf. Etienne, Le culte imperial dans la peninsule iberique
d'Auguste a Diocletien (1958) 313.
0 O. Schafer, Die beiden Panegyrici des Mamertinus und die Geschichte des Kaisers
Maximianus Herculius (1914) 86-88.
totally debased that it cannot be used of a deity. Sometimes

invictus, more often invictissimus, a further concession to d
emperor is sacred, most sacred, divine; he is majesty, divinit
terminology at least, the emperor has become one with his v
One may still speak of the emperor's maiestas, divinitas, or n
were distinct aspects of the ruler, who yet also becomes hi
divinitas, his numen. When it is possible to substitute a nam
possessive adjective for any of these words, it is clear that the s
no verbal distinction between human and divine. This lack of rigorous
separation between emperor and the divinity gives rise to some peculiar
expressions for empire, or for the process of becoming emperor. The author of
Panegyric VII says that Maximian had divinitas (imperial power) before
Constantine (7.3.2). He also calls the beginning of Maximian's rule the ortus of
his numen.12
The lists in the Appendix show that the equation of emperor and divinity,
judged by terminology and the frequency of appearance, is more evident in the
earlier speeches. Expressions such as "your divinity," once in general use, may
have lost some of their original meaning.'3 I say "may have," for there is also
evidence that these words regained a certain force during the fourth century, as
I shall show later on. Perhaps it is not a question of losing or regaining, but of
staying the same.
I divide the Panegyrici into two groups, "early" (V-XI) and "late" (II-IV,
XII), although V and XII do not fit precisely into either group. The twelfth
panegyric, delivered in 313, is a rich lode of equivocation. Various scholars
have studied the panegyrics addressed to Constantine for evidence of change in
his religious beliefs after 312; they discern a gradual development away from
the outspoken paganism of the panegyric of 310, through a kind of
philosophic, if somewhat confused, theology (313), to monotheism (321).'
Since there is a space of only two years between the last "early" speech (311)
and the first "late" one (313), "pagan" and "Christian" might seem to be more
accurate designations. I avoid them because to place the speeches into such
categories is misleading and is to make assumptions beyond what their
evidence allows about the religious beliefs of the orators and of Constantine
himself.
In the earlier panegyrics divinus refers to the emperor 37 times in 96 pages
(approximately once every 2.5 pages); to the gods, only 7 times. In the last four
12 Cf. 8.2.2 vestrae maiestatis ortus.

13 Liebeschuetz 238 n. 3 notes, ". . . such language had to become more extreme in order to
compensate for the devaluation of the phraseology over centuries of use."
" See below on Panegyrics XII and IV. For analyses of Constantine's religious development as
discerned through the Panegyrici, see R. Pichon, Les derniers ecrivains profanes (1906) 102-107;
J. Maurice, C. R. Acad. Inscr. (1909) 165-179; Liebeschuetz 281-291.
speeches the incidence is reversed, although not so disproportionately: 17 in

111 pages for the emperor - about once every 6.5 pages - and 26 for the
divinity. In addition, the gods have been replaced by one nameless god.
Caelestis appears rarely: it occurs 13 times in VI-XI, 10 of which modify the
emperor. The authors of V and XII do not use it. It shows up again 18 times in
the three latest speeches and only once refers to the emperor.
In the earlier speeches the orators use divinitas only of the emperor, in the
later ones, with two exceptions (both in Pan. XII of 313), only of the deity.
The use of maiestas is scanty in the later panegyrics, although that particular
word has never been out of style.
Nazarius and Claudius Mamertinus never use numen of the emperor and
each employs it only for the deity. Elsewhere its frequency and intent parallel
that of the adjective divinus: 39 references to the emperor in V-XI, 8 to the
gods; in II-IV and XII, 6 times for each. The author of XII prefers numen as
an attribute of the emperor (four times) and when he uses it of the deity he
modifies it with divinum (cf. 2.30.2, 4.7.3).
The orators' terminology has changed by the end of the fourth century. In
the later panegyrics, especially in the last three, the speakers rarely attribute
superhuman qualities to the emperor, and even divinus, that most common of
adjectives, infrequently appears. One may also compare the ways in which
Ausonius and Symmachus address late fourth-century emperors. Both reserve
the word deus for the divinity; the ruler is deo proximus (Symm. Orat. 1.18;
Aus. Gr. Act. 5.21) or deo similis (Symm. Orat. 1. 1). The emperor is still "your
majesty." To Ausonius, numen is the power of god; to Symmachus, who once
calls Valentinian I aeterne defensor (Orat. 2.27), numen can still describe the
emperor (2.32: quanto parcior vestri numinis cultus est quam deorum),
although only twice in the extant orations and not as a term of direct address
(at Orat. 1.22 Symmachus uses tui numinis instead of a possessive adjective).
Once Valentinian's consilia are divina (Symm. Orat. 2.6) and Gratian's
auditorium is sacrum (but that is the technical term: Aus. Gr. Act. 10.45).
Ausonius (Gr. Act. 5.22) describes Gratian's magnanimitas as caelestis, and
Symmachus uses the same adjective (Orat. 3.5) of the iudicium whereby the
young man became emperor. One may note also Symmachus' use of the
adjective venerabilis (Orat. 1.7, 2.18, 2.23, 3.11, 4.12; cf. Ausonius' veneratio
tua [Gr. Act. 1.3]). In the extant orations there is little to offend Christian ears
besides the two instances of numen in Symmachus, and in Ausonius the phrase
divinitatis tuae . . . verba (Gr. Act. 10.45).
Symmachus' Relationes, on the other hand, are filled with a variety of
flattering formulations. In these official letters, deus is always, and numen
occasionally, the divinity (cf. deo proximus: 14.3, 19.10); the emperor is (in
descending order or frequency) numen, clementia, aeternitas, perennitas,
majestas, mansuetudo, serenitas, felicitas. His attributes are sacer, divinus,
venerabilis, caelestis, aeternus, sacrosanctus. Almost without

words belong to formulaic phrases and terms of address. They must reflect
current epistolary correctness of form and demonstrate that bureaucratic
convention is much slower than oratorical to change. Indeed, the expression
"your majesty" has endured almost two thousand years, although all the
others have been given over. Majesty ("biggerness") is something which
monarchs unquestionably have in some sense, but they do not necessarily
possess the rest. If numen, aeternitas, and similar words had been truly empty
of meaning, one might find them yet in modern terminology.
II
Panegyric X. A. D. 289. Anonymous to Maximian."5 Rome's Birthday.

In his opening words (10.1.1), the author of Panegyric X equates the honors
of emperors and gods, but despite his mention of the rulers' divine paternity
(10.2.3), he cares little for the gods. Maximian's education (10.2.4) suits a
soldier-emperor - he spent his youth on the frontier, where the sounds of
clashing arms drowned out his infant cries - but the orator twists the standard
allusion: Finguntur haec de Iove, sed de te vera sunt, imperator (10.2.5). He
was probably not the first, and certainly not the last panegyrist to demote an
Olympian.
The emperor himself is said to be a god16 more venerable than the invisible
inhabitants of temples at Rome (10.2.1: quanto tandem studio nos hic convenit
[venerari], qui te praesentem intuemur deum toto quidem orbe victorem?).
Maximian's many services to Gaul prove that he is a god, or better: quis deus
tam insperatam salutem nobis attulisset, nist tu adfuisses? (10.5.1). When he
returned triumphant from the field, his consular ceremony having been
interrupted by a barbarian invasion, he filled Trier with joy and altars blazed
with sacrifices to his numen.7 The emperor himself had fulfilled what he had
asked of the gods earlier in the day, and again the gods had no part (10.6.3-4).
'5 Whether or not the same orator, one Mamertinus, wrote both Panegyrics X and XI, I prefer
to treat the two orations separately. In the first place, the identity of authorship cannot be proven
beyond a doubt; in the second, each effort is a literary unit and deserves to be treated as such.
" A. D. Nock has distinguished between the literal and figurative use of deuis. He says (UHS 48
[1928] 31) that you call someone a god "either unreservedly or with reference to yourself, a god to
you." To the second category belong most of the examples from the Republican and Augustan
periods (see his p. 31 n. 51). The instance here belonigs to the first. Praesens deus = &6g
'7 See S. R. F. Price, JRS 70 (1980) 28-43, on sacrifice in the imperial cult, especially the
conclusion (p. 42) that the evidence precludes systematization. The emperor's position was often
ambiguous, between men and gods; but occasionally the ruler was unquestionably treated in
sacrificial matters as divine.
Once more the author slights Jupiter to praise

at the end of the day, there were sacrifices th
what he had asked of Jupiter in the morning (10.6.5).'9 Maximian, like
Hercules, is known for his labors, while Diocletian accomplishes everything
effortlessly. But whereas Diocletian, who seems not gaite to measure up to his
colleague in this speech, is equal to his father, Maximian has twice surpassed
Jupiter himself.
Jupiter and Hercules frequently appear in this speech. One may object20 that
Diocletian's assumption for himself and his colleague of the titles Jovius and
Herculius indicates the emperors' subordinate relationship to the gods:
Diocletian clearly wanted to claim divine protection for his person, if not
actual divinity. It is useless to ask to what extent his subjects pondered the
theological implications of his cognomen. Diocletian had a human body, but
he said that he was the son of Jupiter himself, not of a deified emperor. In this
respect at least he departed from the practice of his predecessors.
Diocletian's motives aside, the real question is not whether the orator
recognized other divine entities, but how he conceives of the emperor's
relationship with these powers. In order to show that the emperors are
responsible for their subordinates' accomplishments (10.11.5), the orator
makes the analogy that although we seem to receive every benefit from various
deities, all good really derives from Jupiter and Hercules: sic omnibus
pulcherrimis rebus . .. Diocletianus (initium) facit, tu tribuis effectum
(10.11.6).21 Here the two gods are the summi auctores, greater than the other
gods; the emperors are greater than other men. For the sake of the analogy, the
speaker seems at first glance to have grouped the supreme powers into two
different spheres, celestial and earthly. But the gods are not responsible solely
for what happens in the heavens; they are the authors of omnia commoda caelo
terraque parta. The emperors are the source of omnes pulcherrimae res. The
speaker does not describe a separation of powers, but uses the gods as a literary
device to prove his point.
Near the end of the speech, the orator turns again to the occasion of his
panegyric. He speaks of the celebrations in Rome and imagines how much
18 It is strange that Liebeschuetz 238 and n. 5 has chosen section 6.4 as evidence of distinction
between god and emperor.
9 Cf. 1. S. Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (1955) 98: "The actual ritual of the
imperial cult reappears in monumental art only when the reigning emperor receives offerings in his
own person as a praesens deus, and when the worship of the living ruler finally displaces the old
rites of the triumph and the payment of vota to the grcater gods of the state."
2 With, for example, N. H. Baynes, op. cit. (n. 2) 84. But see MacCormack 169-172 for a very
different conclusion.
21 E. Galletier, editor of the Bude edition, supplies initium. Mynors prints D)iocletianus tfacit
and notes alius aliud supplet.
more majestic the emperors' presence would make the city, quae nunc sine
dubio praesentiam vestri sibi fingit, aedes vestrorum numinum frequentando et
... invocando Statorem lovem Herculemque Victorem (10.13.4). Both here
and in the next sentence, when the author reminds Maximian that Hercules
derived the title Victor from a victory over pirates (10.13.5), Galletier
translates numen "divinite protectrice." One could argue that by numen the
orator means "godhead," a divine force emanating from Jupiter and Hercules
in which the emperors partake, but in this speech there is no information about
the emperors' powers which would warrant such an interpretation of this
passage. Jupiter and Hercules are the "parents" of the emperors. It is
Herculius, though, cui iam sic tempestatum opportunitas obsegnatur, who will
overcome the pirates (10.12.1-8). What is more, the Romans worship at the
temples of Jupiter and Hercules only because the emperors are not there in
person: they imagine the emperors' presence by worshipping the gods. Far
from picturing the emperors as subordinates through whom the gods manifest
themselves, this orator characterizes the gods as substitutes for the real thing.
The Roman populace must be content with an approximation but the citizens
of Trier may celebrate enthusiastically since the deus is actually praesens.
Diocletian chose Jupiter and Hercules to symbolize his and Maximian's
relationship to each other and to the gods.22 The author of X employs this
imperial propaganda for his own purpose. Jupiter and Hercules are only
symbols in his speech, useful for drawing analogies or for being compared
unfavorably with the living emperors. The gods play the role of stock figures
in comparisons, like Alexander and real or mythical Roman heroes. One of the
emperor's duties as Pontifex Maximus was to preserve the form of official
Roman religion by offering sacrifice to the gods, as his predecessors had done.
The orator represents Maximian performing these official functions, but he
robs them of importance when he reveals the emperors as the real authors of
the empire's well-being. Their subjects, therefore, owe them appropriate
honors (10.6.5); the source of the greatest benefits to the provinces is the
physical presence of the emperor himself (10.14.4-5).23
Panegyric XI. A. D. 291. Anonymous to Maximian. The emperor's birthday.

The author of XI commences with a standard reference to Maximian's
divine parentage (11.2.4). He is interested in the emperors' restless energy, and
22 These gods sometimes appear on coinage as something like servants, when Diocletian and
Maximian sitting are shown being crowned by Jupiter and Hercules standing: Ensslin, SB Munich
(op. cit. above n. 4) 39.
23 This statement is as true as many another commonplace. The emperors' physical presence
and personal interest were of real importance to the empire's inhabitants; the wheels of the
administrative machine always turned very slowly, and often crookedly. The fifth panegyric
shows that Constantine's visit to Autun resulted in immediate relief of some of the city's burden of
taxation.
in the following section (11.3.1-8) their divine origin

vestri generis conditor vel parens . . . vestri illi parentes . . . i/li Diocletiani
auctor deus24 .. . parentes deos). Diocletian and Maximian have inborn in them
the flame of the divine mind; they are like their parents, who never rest and
preserve their immortality by constant motion. Cicero had used his translation
of Plato when he argued that the soul is immortal and that the gods open up
the way to heaven for those who devote themselves to the state, but this
speaker does not draw attention directly to the emperors' probable posthum-
ous apotheosis when he describes their continual preoccupation with the
25
empire.
At 11.6.1 the orator announces that he will dwell upon the emperors' pietas
and felicitas, not their res gestae. The choice of pietas as a subject requires him
to include the rulers' regard for the gods. The emperors increase the gods'
honor both by the usual means (altars, statues, temples, money), but especially
by adding their own names and images and by their example (11.6.1-2). The
emperors' concern for each other, id quod maxime deorum immortalium cum
religione coniunctum est (11.6.3), receives much longer treatment; their lack of
selfishness proves their superiority to the rest of mankind; their immortal soul
is greater than the empire itself (11.6.5).26 As a result, the gods cannot divide
their benefits between them (11.7.3). The orator seems to have demoted his
rulers to the position of human recipients of divine favor,27 yet this sentence is
but a traditional part of his description of their pietas, to which he has devoted
more than a third of the speech. It is also an argument for Maximian's equality
to his senior colleague. The speaker insists upon the emperors' regard for each
other: their pietas gave them wings (11.8.3-4), their fiery and immortal minds
do not perceive the delays to which bodies are liable (11.8.5). The climax of
this portion of the speech is the conference at Milan. The emperors brought a
clarior lux to Italy with them; they are the source of a light so brilliant that it
indicates the presence of a god (11.10.4-5). The orator imagines the joy and
animation of the people of northern Italy: they worship the emperors
24 Beranger 247 cites this phrase as an example of Diocletian's subordination to the god, but in
this context auctor means that Jupiter is the progenitor of Diocletian's race: TLL 2.6.1204, 58-59.
25 In this connection it is interesting that within this same passage the orator says that Hercules
was once a man. One might interpret this in two ways, either as a compliment, with Hercules
setting a precedent as a god who had lived among men, or as an allusion to the apotheosis of
outstanding men and therefore an indirect hint that Maximian may still be a mortal. Cf. 11.6.4:
manifestum est ceterorum hominum animas esse humiles et caducas, vestras vero caelestes et
sempiternas. Do only emperors have immortal souls?
26 The emperors seem in this passage to be independent powers: vester vero immortalis animus
omnibus opibus omnique fortuna atque ipso est maior imperio.
27 Cf. 11.18.4, where fortuna is the donor. But the orator has already said that the emperors'
soul is greater than fortune (see n. 26).
themselves, equated here with Jupiter and Hercules. The speaker ignores the
official titles Jovius and Herculius: Diocletian and Maximian are gods in the
flesh.28
Pietas is the cause of the emperors' meeting in Milan; their ability to leave
the empire's borders is proof of their felicitas (11.13.1-4): Neque enim pars
ulla terrarum maiestatis vestrae praesentia caret, etiam cum ipsi abesse
videamini (11.13.5). It is clear from his explanation of this statement that the
orator separates the emperors' maiestas from their persons:29
Itaque illud quod de vestro cecinit poeta Romanus love "lovis omnia
plena," id scilicet animo contemplatus, quamquam ipse Iuppiter
summum caeli verticem teneat supra nubila supraque ventos sedens in
luce perpetua, numen tamen eius ac mentem toto infusam esse mundo, id
nunc ego de utroque vestrum audeo praedicare: ubicumque sitis, in
unum licet palatium concesseritis, divinitatem vestram ubique versari,
omnes terras omniaque maria plena esse vestri. Quid enim mirum si,
cum possit hic mundus lovis esse plenus, possit et Herculis? (11.14.2-4)
No matter where their bodies are, their divinitas is everywhere, just as
Jupiter's numen and mens fill the world. The god's and emperors' divine aspect
is similar to the power of thought: an inseparable part of each individual which
nevertheless, since it is not corporeal, is not bound by time and place. The
orator has used his description of Jupiter in 11.14.2 to explain the emperors'
power, and the final sentence of the analogy fulfills a twofold purpose, to
equate the two emperors' capabilities and to unite again ruler and god: after
divinitatem vestram . . . vestri, Iovis and Herculis stand for Iovii and Herculii.
The main point of the final sentence is vindication of Maximian's status; the
orator established earlier (11.10.5) the ruler-god equation with the words
praesens Iuppiter and imperator Hercules.
Panegyric IX. A. D. 297/8. Eumenius to the provincial governor. Request to

rebuild the schools of Autun.
The ninth panegyric is valuable primarily as an example of how one speaks
of the emperors when they are absent.30 As a former Magister Memoriae,
Eumenius has a fluent command of official terminology,3" although he prefers
the superlatives maximi, optimi, fortissimi and invictissimi to sacratissimi, and
28 11.10.5: dis immortalibus laudes gratesque cantari, non opinione traditus sed conspicuus et
praesens Iuppiter cominus invocari, non advena sed imperator Hercules adorari. See Ensslin, SB
Munich (op. cit. above n. 4) 49 and MacCormack 23-26 on this passage.
29 Ausonius (Gr. Act. 1.5) treats the topic differently; Gratian's subjects are nowhere without
reminders of his benefits. Cf. Symmachus Orat. 1.1 on Valentinian's knowlege of his empire.
30 Beranger 248.
3' Note his frequent use of sacer (9.5.4, 9.6.2, 9.11.1&2, 9.13.1&2, 9.16.4, 9.21.4) and divinus
(see Appendix).
his favorite expression is tanti principes (9.9.1, 9.13.1, 9.15.1&5). He never

equates the rulers with their divine parents; the emperors and Caesars are
always lovii and Herculii in his speech (cf. 9.8.1&3, 9.10.2, 9.16.2), and he is
precise about family relationships. At 9.8.1 he calls Hercules Constantius'
avus. He carefully mentions all the rulers, distinguishing Augusti and Caesars;
when he lists their accomplishments all over the empire he goes from east to
west and back again, starting with the two Augusti, an arrangement which
allows him simultaneously to observe imperial seniority (9.21.2). He takes
pains, however, to describe the benefits deriving from the gods whose temples
are situated near the schools in Autun (9.9.3-10.3), as well as the mutual profit
afforded by the association of Hercules with the Muses in the temple at Rome
consecrated to them (9.7.3). Such descriptions advance the cause of literature
and of education, the end of which is to prepare young men for positions in the
imperial administration and to teach them how to rehearse the emperors'
exploits. The gods are integral to his arguments, the emperors' divinity is not.
The vocabulary of this former imperial official and his careful enunciation of
the rulers' relationship with Jupiter, Hercules, each other, are fully in accord
with official practice, and he adds no details of his own imagining to this
formally correct presentation.
Panegyric VIII. A. D. 297/8. Anonymous to Constantius. Dies imperii;

recovery of a province.
The author of the eighth panegyric is fond of representing the emperor and
empire as a source of light. The sun must labor not to be outshone by the
emperors' maiestas (8.2.2-3), the inhabitants of Britain, finally restored to life
by the true light of the empire, regard Constantius as if he had just descended
from heaven (8.19.1-2),32 imperial rule is the source of light, and therefore of
life, for Roman citizens (8.10.1). The orator asserts that the emperors oversee
human affairs with more constancy than the sun and all the stars, since they
alone, night and day, keep watch, by means both of their corporeal eyes and
the eyes of their divine minds: Adeo, Caesar, vestra in orbem terrarum
distributa beneficia prope plura sunt quam deorum (8.4.3). To omit the adverb
prope would exceed the bounds of propriety for this orator. He is more
circumspect than the author(s) of X and XI when he compares the emperors
with the gods: the people of Britain regard Constantius not as deus, but ut
caelo delapsus.
32 [Britanni] vera imperii luce recreati. Cf. the words REDDITOR LVCIS AETERNAE on the
Arras Medallion (RIC 5:2 no. 430), which represents Constantius' arrival at London, and
interpretation thereof in MacCormack 30-31.
This orator uses inflated vocabulary more frequently than an

his words contain less substance than form. He gives to the em
a thunderbolt (8.13.1, 8.15.6), and identifies the emperors as superhuman
powers when he says that the soldiers contemplated a victory derived from
them: Non i/li tunc vires, non humana robora, sed vestra numina cogitaverunt
(8.15.4). Only here does he use numen to indicate the emperors' power,
although in one other passage (8.13.2) he says that Constantius' numen was
turned toward Britain. Numen here is the mind or attention, like the watch
which the emperors keep with their mind's eye (8.4.3)."4
The author of the eighth speech rarely mentions the gods. Constantius has
the unanimous will of the gods on his side, witness his victories (8.17.1). The
orator does not think that even a god, addressing mankind directly, could have
persuaded anyone before the event to believe the many benefits which men
were soon to acquire from Diocletian and his colleagues (8.9.1). This sort of
compliment is similar to those used in the tenth panegyric (e. g. 10.2.5, 10.6.4).
The implication may be that the gods were not helping the empire before
Diocletian's accession: the orators sometimes attribute to god(s) a temporary
(if inexplicable) lack of concern with human affairs (compare 8.10.1-3; 2.30.1;
7.9.1). What is more, a god's promises are weak substitutes for the emperors'
performance.
The orator deals in a straightforward manner with Constantius' and his
colleagues' considerable successes. There may be various reasons for his
attitude: Constantius as a Caesar perhaps ought not to have been addressed as
a full-fledged deity, yet the orator is speaking in the presence of the Caesar
alone. Even if the same speaker might have addressed the question of
Maximian's divinity with more obvious zeal, it would be rude to do so unless
Maximian were there in person. The orator's consistent use of the second
person plural indicates that he was mindful of other ears. Equally, his personal
beliefs may be the cause of his devoting so little attention either to the
emperors' divinity or to the gods. And MacCormack (p. 27) observes the
subordination in this speech of the themes of epiphany and divinity to the
historical narrative.
Near the end of his panegyric, the speaker can think of no greater favor from
the gods than that they allow the emperors' subjects and all their heirs forever
to serve both the present emperors, whom he calls perpetui parentes et domini
generis humani, and their offspring (8.20.1). His prayer, phrased in conven-
tional terms, asks only for a series of good emperors.
3 Unlike his predecessors, this orator prefers the vocative, imperator invicte. to other forms of
address, e. g. sacratissime.
34 At 8.4.2 numen means imperial power; elsewhere it usually is equivalent to "you" or to
"your majesty."
The gods appear thrice in the speech, twice

orator is more interested in the emperors an
what kind of beings they are. Perhaps the emp
which this speaker takes for granted. Perhaps d
orator's lack of interest in the gods implies t
from them. In any event, his comparatively re
more striking the excesses of the two earliest p
Panegyric VII. A. D. 307. Anonymous to Constantine and Maximian.

Epithalamium (Constantine's marriage to Fausta).
The author of the seventh panegyric is, like Eumenius, a master of correct
terminology, and more. He seems to have created a system of converting the
emperors' attributes into synonyms for imperial power. He uses the word
maiestas seven times, never as an epithet, always as an aspect of emperor or
empire, and represents imperium in three different ways: divinitas (7.3.2),
sacrum istud fastigium divinae potestatis (7.6.1), numen (7.8.3). He does not
use divinitas, numen, or the circumlocution of 7.6.1 anywhere else and almost
seems to have introduced the terms solely for the purpose of definition. He
carefully explains, too, the nature of immortality. The forethought of the
aeterni principes guarantees that Rome will be governed by successive
generations of the same house (7.2.2); likewise, the immortality of the republic
depends upon her citizens' producing children (7.2.3). Constantius himself has
a special immortality beyond that of the other divi because his son, who is like
him in body and spirit, is emperor (7.14.5).3 The orator has a purpose (the
dynastic motif) and an occasion (a marriage) beyond that of definition for
introducing these reasonings, but one can argue the value of marriage and
child-rearing, one can justify Constantine's promotion to Augustus, without
underscoring the emperors' mortality.
Like the authors of the tenth and eleventh panegyrics, this orator asserts that
Maximian has proven his descent from Hercules (7.8.2); unlike them, he is
always careful to separate divine and imperial powers. He justifies Maximian's
return from retirement; he speculates upon the divine purpose (7.7.5-6; 7.9.1;
7.10.1). Since Jupiter himself gave Maximian imperial power forever, the
emperor should not have hesitated to take up the burden again: his inborn
maiestas clung to him even while a private citizen (7.12.4-5). At this point the
orator has compared the emperor's success in setting the state back on its
course to Apollo's restoring the sun to its proper place in heaven (7.12.2-3).
Apart from the analogy between emperor and Apollo, there are two other
places where Maximian's activities are likened to a god's. The orator describes
his return to power as the point at which omnibus spes salutis inluxit; the
"' Beranger 248: "C'est la conception de la Rome classique."
turbulent conditions of the republic represent a spell of foul weath

are still any storms anywhere, he says, necesse est tamen ad
dilucescat et sileat (7.12.7-8); a clever way of alluding to Maxim
with Galerius. The orator's division of responsibilities between
Constantine suggests a position of godlike aloofness from huma
the senior ruler, although it indicates which emperor had the
Gaul (7.14.1).
This orator consistently represents the emperors as mortal recipients of
divine favor. Coins issued under the Tetrarchy often project a similar image:
the emperors receive their power directly from Jupiter.36 The content of the
sixth panegyric makes it clear that the practice of equating emperor and god
had not gone out of fashion, yet the author of VII not only avoids such an
equation but even, in describing the hierarchy of divine and human power,
denies it.
Panegyric VI. A. D. 310. Anonymous to Constantine. Quinquennalia (and a

request for Autun).
Imperium nascendo meruisti: the gods, according to the author of the sixth
panegyric, chose Constantine as emperor on the day he was born (6.3.1-4).
Jupiter himself stretched forth his right hand to take Constantius from earth to
heaven (6.7.3); Jupiter himself, the grantor of imperial power, sent maiestas on
the wings of victory to Constantine (6.8.5), the unanimous choice of all the
gods (6.7.4-5). Even Constantine's arrival in Gaul was wonderful (6.7.5), as if
Jupiter himself had sent him to earth.
The date of this speech is 310, the year in which Maximian, having tried
unsuccessfully to wrest imperial power from both his son and his son-in-law,
committed suicide. The author of this panegyric must support Constantine's
claim to the title Augustus but he cannot mention the man who had granted
that title three years before, nor the emperor who disputes it.37 Divus Claudius
now makes his first appearance as ancestor of Constantine's house; Constan-
tine is the only current ruler descended from two imperial forebears (6.2.1-5).
The orator devotes slightly more than the first quarter of the speech to
Constantine's antecedents ;38 he affirms both the dynastic principle and the
divine support which Constantine enjoys. In this context, the gods have a
definite place. No other orator devotes such long descriptive passages within
36 RIC 6.283, 355, 358, 465, 531, 532, 580, 581, 621-622, 667, 670, 675, 690-691.
37 6.1.5: Vt enim ipsos immortales deos, quamquam universos animo colamus, interdum tamen
in suo quemque templo ac sede veneramur, ita mihi fas esse duco omnium principum pietate
meminisse, laudibus celebrare praesentem.
3 Constantine's illustrious family allows the orator to compose a longer section on his
ancestors, real or adopted.
such a short space to justify the idea of rule

made his point, he abandons it.
The orator finds Britain blessed above other places because Constantine
became Caesar there, and he exclaims:
Di boni, quid hoc est quod semper ex aliquo supremo fine mundi nova
deum numina universo orbi colenda descendunt? Sic Mercurius a Nilo
cuius fluminis origo nescitur, sic Liber ab Indis prope consciis solis
orientis deos se gentibus ostendere praesentes. Sacratiora sunt profecto
mediterraneis loca vicina caelo et inde propius a dis mittitur imperator
ubi terra finitur. (6.9.4-5)
Although Constantine has been sent by the gods, he has now become a god
himself, or, more precisely, a dei numen. That the creation of new gods is not
without precedent supports the contention. The young emperor's appearance
betrays his superhuman nature; he is a pulchrum et caeleste miraculum whose
maiestas invites the beholder's admiring gaze even while its splendor blinds
him (6.17.1). Constantine is proof that one can form a just estimation, on the
basis of physical beauty, of how great a heavenly spirit inhabits his body
(6.17.3). His soldiers think he is a god, for his divinity is as sure as his outward
form is beautiful (6.17.4).
It is hard to decide whether the vision of Apollo granted to Constantine is
an invention or if it really happened, or the emperor thought is happened. The
orator of 310, who wanted to magnify his ruler's power, has given modern
scholars a passage provocative of endless discussion on the problem of
Constantine's religious beliefs and political policy, not to mention the
questions of responsibility and engineering.
A discussion of the vision is well beyond the scope of this paper;39 Apollo
represents a new divinity in Constantine's political life. Whoever he is, he has
nothing to do with Hercules. Beranger's point (p. 249) about the oration's
Augustan overtones is well taken. Constantine's panegyrist proclaims a new
order, a new Augustus, and by implication a sole guardian for the restored
republic. Apollo here may be the same god as the one whom Augustus thanked
for his victory at Actium, although Constantine's coinage from this period
frequently displays the sun-god Sol Invictus.40
The author of VI, who is from Autun, observes that Constantine was so
pleased with the encounter with the god that he made lavish donations to the
3 For one recent discussion with bibliography, see Rodgers, Byzantion 50 (1980) 259-278.
4 The legends include SOLI COMITI AVG N and SOLI COMITI AVGG NN, SOLI
COMITI CONSTANTINI AVG, SOLI INVICT COM DN, SOLI INVICTO, SOLI
INVICTO AETERNO AVG, SOLI INVICTO COMITI, SOLI INVICTO COMITI DN: RIC
7.752-753. See also G.H. Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus (1972) 167-169; H. P. L'Orange,
Symbolae Osloenses 14 (1935) 101 (.- Likeness and Icon [1973] 344).
temple;4' he hopes that Constantine might soon do the same for the
Apollo at Autun. He asks, Di immortales, quando illum dabitis
praesentissimus hic deus omni pace composita illos quoque Apol
sacras aedes et anhela fontium ora circumeat? (6.22.1). Should C
visit Autun, he would admire the temple of his numen in that city
orator has just referred to the emperor as praesentissimus hic
numen therefore Constantine or Apollo? In the context, ambigu
deliberate.
Panegyric V. A. D. 311. Anonymous to Constantine. Gratiarum actio for

benefits conferred upon Autun.
The fifth panegyric was delivered by a man sent from his native Autun to
thank Constantine for the emperor's kindnesses to that city. The orator
devotes the first half of the speech to Autun's merits and its inhabitants' recent
misfortunes, the second part to the help which his countrymen received from
the emperor. The speaker does not stray far from his immediate subject and his
praises relate directly to Constantine's visit to Autun and naturally include a
few remarks on the nature of a benevolent prince.
The orator rightly insists that Constantine's entrance into the city was the
first sign of health for the citizens (5.7.6), but he ignores the emperor's divine
aspect, although he pays Constantine one curious compliment, quod pia mente
conceperis statim voce declares (5.10.1). This swiftness of verbalization is like
the speed with which divina illa mens, which rules the world, accomplishes
whatever it has decided to do. The emperor's word and its accomplishment are
the same. Constantine makes up to his citizens for whatever Terra and Jupiter
withhold (5.13.6).
This speaker has really said nothing to indicate that Constantine is a
supernatural being. Constantine is, of course, the best of emperors, whom the
gods made prince for the benefit of his subjects (5.13.1). The author of the fifth
panegyric is, like Eumenius and the author of VII, a man who prefers not to
call his emperor a god. The occasion of this speech, delivered in gratitude for
favors granted, is not responsible for the lack of interest in the emperor's
divinity and would not have prevented a determined emperor-worshipper
from praising the ruler in terms appropriate to a divine station.
Panegyric XII. A.D. 313. Anonymous to Constantine. Defeat of Maxentius.

The author of XII imagines the emperor acting by divine guidance, the
human instrument of the deity's will. When he recalls the preparations for
Constantine's campaign against Maxentius, he asserts that the god granted
4' 6.21.7: Iam omnia te vocare ad se templa videantur: whereas flowers spring up where
Jupiter and Juno have lain, in the wake of Constantine's footsteps rise cities and temples (6.22.6).
Constantine a singular favor by revealing the divine will to him alone;

Constantine had determined to march on Rome against everyone's advice and
despite unfavorable auspices. Quisnam te deus, quae tam praesens hortata est
majestas? (12.2.4) the orator asks, and later answers, Habes profecto aliquod
cum illa mente divina, Constantine, secretum (12.2.5). Constantine was plainly
seeking a victory already promised by the divinity (12.3.3). The orator
pretends to wonder at the emperor's temerity: dic, quaeso, quid in consilio nisi
divinum numen habuisti? (12.4.1). Divina praecepta provided the basis of
Constantine's faith, superstitiosa maleficia of Maxentius' (12.4.4). Divine
inspiration gave Constantine a solution to the problem of captured soldiers
(12.11.4) while it deprived Maxentius of his senses (12.16.2).
Only one passage compares emperor and god: like the thunderbolts of god,
the weapons of Constantine's soldiers (eadam sub numine tuo tela) can
distinguish between enemies and suppliants (12.13.2).42 The comparison with
the supreme deity Jupiter? The orator calls him mundi creator et dominus.) is
an isolated instance.43
Constantine is not, however, merely a servant of the divinity; he partakes of
divine power himself. When the panegyrist speaks of the divinum numen
counseling the emperor, he twice qualifies his statement: An illa te ratio
ducebat (sua enim cuique prudentia deus est)?44 ... divino consilio, imperator,
hoc est tuo (12.4.2-5). The Roman senate dedicated a statue of a god to the
emperor, and Italy had already sent a shield and a crown, both of gold:
Debetur enim et saepe debebitur et divinitati simulacrum aureum et virtuti
scutum et corona pietati (12.25.4). Divinitas, like virtus and pietas, is an
attribute of the emperor.4' When the orator usurps the theme of Constantine's
inability to stay at rest (12.22.1: Quisnam iste est tam continuus ardor? quae
divinitas perpetuo vigens motu?), he demonstrates that perpetual motion is
indeed a divine aspect of the prince. But it is an aspect as well of the supreme
being, the summus rerum sator,46 whom the orator asks to make Constantine
42 Beranger 250 says of the numen in this speech, "-1 n'apparait qu'une fois." See Appendix.
4' The panegyrist also compares Constantine favorably to the emperor's deified father
(12.24.4-25.2).
44 A Virgilian echo; Aen. 9.184-185: dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,/Euryale, an sua
cuique deus fit dira cupido ?
4 On golden statues see A. D. Nock, HSCP 41 (1930) 1-62; K. Scott, TAPA 62 (1931)
101-123. Many scholars agree that Constantine was represented with the attributes of a god,
whether Apollo or Sol. See A. Alfoldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (1948) 69,
132 n. 23; J. Maurice, op. cit. (n. 14) 172; A. Piganiol, L'Empereur Constantin (1932) 67-68;
C. Ligota,JWI 26 (1963) 178-185. T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 46 and n. 16,
supports M. R. Alfoldi's view (ING 11 [1961] 19ff) that the manuscript reading dee should be
emended not to dei but to deae, and that the statue was of Victoria.
46 Cf. expressions for god in Ausonius, Gratiarum Actio: aeterne omnium genitor, etc. (18.80),
caeli et humani generis rector (4.20). In the present instance of the prayer form, the speaker does
truly immortal. Constantine has sons, yet this writer finds unsa
sort of immortality which the author of VII had so carefully de
will be truly happy, he says, if in addition to his imperial offspring,
Constantine himself should remain forever the greatest emperor (12.26.2-5).
Obscurity and inconsistency nearly overwhelm the assertion of immortality
and divinity, but it remains.
Panegyric IV. A. D. 321. Nazarius to Constantine. Quinquennalia of the

Caesars.
Nazarius delivered his eulogy at Rome; Constantine was elsewhere. The
orator never intimates that the emperor is a divine being,47 yet the consistent
divine support which Constantine enjoys raises him high above the level of
ordinary mortals (4.16.2). Nazarius describes a ruler no less extraordinary than
his "divine" predecessors.
There is a copious stream of flattering asides and comparisons.48 Constan-
tine is greater than all other Roman emperors by as much as they themselves
were greater than their subjects (4.1.1; cf. 4.15.3), and the army sent from
heaven is honored more by his use of it than he by its coming (4.14.4-6).
Despite his superiority, Constantine is also more benevolent and more
approachable than his predecessors. He tried without success to win over
Maxentius by kindness (4.8-12). The lux imperatoris has undergone a healthy
change from the blinding fulgor of other emperors (or of Constantine himself
in earlier panegyrics); his serenum lumen invites contemplation (4.5.1-4).
Constantine's greatest glory is his spotless character, which is both proof of
and justification for his having been chosen as the deity's favorite. This divine
favor ensures the good of his subjects as well (4.2.6). Nazarius first establishes
that god actually cares about the human race and its doings on earth (4.7.3); he
often reiterates the principle. The deity sends Maxentius to his destruction
(4.7.4, 4.27.5, 4.28.1), protects Constantine from harm,49 and helps him in all
his endeavors (4.13.5, 4.16.2, 4.17.1), especially in the field (4.12.1, 4.14-15,
4.19.2-3, 4.29.1).
not refrain from speculation on the god's nature, but does not find a name; rather, he tries to
ensure that the god will hear him by listing his possible forms instead of his epithets, and resumes,
te, inquam, oramus. Cf. MacCormack 34-37. The orator has, at least, correctly reproduced the
argument about eternal motion and immortality, unlike the author of XI. Compare also the
description of the spirit in Aen. 6.724-751. On the eternity of the emperor, see F. Cumont, Rev.
d'hist et de litter. relig. 1 (1896) 435-452; H. U. Instinsky, Hermes 77 (1942) 313-355.
" Although his head (4.29.5) and even his person (4.35.3: divinus princeps) merit the adjective
divinus.
48 Erat quod tollere velles. An example is his parenthetical comment, cum dico proelia, significo
victorias (4.19.4).
49 4.7.4 pietatem tuam texit; 4.16.1 summam illam maiestatem quae te circumplexa tueatur;
4.18.4 te per omnia subnzxum deo vadere; 4.26.1 tu non intutior tempore quam deo tectior.
One of the highlights of this oration is Nazarius' two-page description of

the heavenly army which suddenly appeared in Gaul to reinforce the
emperor's ranks.50 The orator cannot relate Constantine's military dispositions
outside of Rome, for he does not know exactly where the celestial army
fought, but assumes that it must have stood by wherever the emperor himself
was (4.29.1). This is not the place to argue the relative merits of Nazarius'
account against Lactantius', nor to try to trace the development of this legend
to determine its significance for Constantine's religious convictions. The vision
has a rhetorical purpose; if Nazarius had a religious bias he has kept it well
hidden. The only hint he gives of his private beliefs in his insistence upon
divine interest and intervention in human affairs. If the orator's religious
preference remains a mystery, pagan in ambiance though it may be,51
Constantine's own cannot be discovered by means of the evidence in this
panegyric. The deity appears in several guises;52 the author of XII is equally
reluctant to give god a name. Nazarius shows that Constantine's greatness is
upheld by divine power; the authors of V and VII do no less for their
emperors, and no more. The speech was delivered at Rome; the orator's
primarily pagan audience may be the most important factor governing
Nazarius' interpretation of the divinity. Far more important than the views of
either orator or emperor is the continued goodwill of the people of Italy and
the West.53 The apologetic elements interwoven into the description of the
invasion of 312 hint broadly that the goodwill was valuable, especially when
Constantine was contemplating the liberation of another sector of the world
from the "tyrant" Licinius.
Nazarius and the author of XII are apparently monotheists, though a
particular brand of monotheism cannot be definitely established for either.
Consider the following description:
altissimum illum et cuncta potestate cohibentem deum, qui ditione
perpetua divina atque humana moderatur, cum despiciat in terras, . .
(3.28.5)
5 Reports of divine intervention in battle were common in the ancient world. See Pfister, RE
Suppl. 4 (1924) 277-323. In the second chapter (Military Epiphanies) of The Greek State at War III
(1979), W. K. Pritchett cites examples taken from inscriptions as well as literary sources, and
concludes that visions were not necessarily inventions made up after the event.
5 A. Alfoldi, op. cit. (n. 45) 70.
52 Rerum arbiter deus 4.7.3; illa vis, illa maiestasfandi ac nefandi discriminatrix 4.7.4; divinitas
4.7.3, 4.13.5; maiestas 4.16.1, 4.19.2; deus 4.16.2 (bis), 4.18.4, 4.26.1, 4.28.1: the use of deus
without qualification by ille or any other modifier is exactly the way a monotheist would describe
the deity.
5 See A. Alfoldi, op. cit. (n. 45) 30-31, 75-81, 91, 134 n. 30, on Constantine's problems with
Rome and attempts to maintain good relations with the inhabitants of the Eternal City.
Hearing that a supreme being inhabits the heavens, a Christian can t

own deity and a pagan of Jupiter. The words offend no one. Some examples
already noted define the deity in no less nebulous terms:
Spectat nos ex alto rerum arbiter deus, et quamvis humanae mentes
profundos gerant cogitationum recessus, insinuat tamen sese totam
scrutatura divinitas, . . . (4.7.3).
summe rerum sator ... sive aliqua supra omne caelum potestas es quae
hoc opus tuum ex altiore naturae arce despicias . . . (12.26.1)
The third passage implies a creator god, the first two a moderator, but all three
describe the most powerful divinity vaguely, namelessly. Yet half a century lay
between the enunciation of the first and the third; the first belongs to the
speech which Claudius Mamertinus delivered on the first day of January 362,
in the presence of the emperor Julian. Orator and emperor were pagan, a large
part of the audience Christian.54
Panegyric III. A. D. 362. Claudius Mamertinus to Julian. Gratiarum actio for

his consulship; successful outcome of a usurpation.
Claudius Mamertinus, Nazarius, and the author of XII all assert that the
emperor has a very special relationship with the deity. For the sake of
comparison, there follow a few passages from each speech:
perpetuam in te benignae maiestatis opem fluere (4.19.2)
caelesti ope salutem rei publicae propagatam (3.27.4)55
caelestem in illo favorem (4.2.6)
divino munere . . . regnator est (3.27.2)
quid in consilio nisi divinum numen habuisti? (12.4.1)
divino instinctu, quo regis omnia (4.17.1)
quacumque consilia eius gaudet formare divinitas (3.15.2)
non dubiam te, sed promissam divinitus petere victoriam (12.3.3)
venturae felicitatis eventum conscius divini animus praevidebat56 (3.14.6)
In one respect, Mamertinus is closer to the author of XII. As the last two sets
of examples show, both stress the element of communication between emperor
and god, whereas Nazarius' theme is the deity's protection of the emperor.
Otherwise, Nazarius and Mamertinus show the greater affinity; the latter,
unlike the author of XII, does not even suggest that Julian himself is divine.
There is one other difference between Julian and Constantine. Mamertinus
judges Julian in terms of human beings. Nazarius says of Constantine, nec
54 See R. Browning, The Emperor Julian (1975) 160; S. G. MacCormack, Historia 21 (1972)
734.
5 Cf. Symmachus Orat. 2.23: negotiis tuis auxilio fuisse caelestes.
S' Cf. Ausonius Gr. Act. 18: supremus ille imperii et consiliorum tuorum deus conscius et
arbiter et auctor.
humanorum terminos curent qui semper divina meditantur (4.2.6); Julian, too,
is incapable of thinking merely human thoughts: Non potest quicquam
abiectum et humile cogitare qui scit de se semper loquendum (3.31.2).
Constantine's purity of soul both reveals and merits divine favor (4.16.1-2);
Julian's equal purity has as its aim immortality: te ... dirigere omnes opes et
cogitationes tuas ad memoriam posteritatis aeternam (3.31.1). Nazarius
measures Constantine's greatness in terms of divine protection; Julian's
immortality is that which men bestow. That is the Stoic ideal; it had been
generations since a man of such sympathy for Republican forms had ascended
the throne.
Other emperors have been likened to the sun, or emit a more or less blinding
fulgor from their bodies or from their eyes (12.19.6). Julian is like a star.
Claudius Mamertinus calls him quasi quoddam salutare humano generi sidus
(3.2.3),57 rather than a source of the life-bringing lux imperatoris, and Julian's
eyes flash with sidereis ignibus (3.6.4). The astrological orientation of 3.2.3
avoids equating emperor and sun, and the qualifiers quasi, quoddam make the
orator's metaphorical intention abundantly clear. Cicero was less restrained
when he spoke of Pompey.
Thrice, Mamertinus does compare Julian with the gods, but two, if not all
three, of the instances have no serious content. When he asks, Ecquis deus uno
in anno multiplicesfructus agro uni dedit?, he does not mean that the fields are
more productive or even, as at 5.13.6, that the emperor has lowered the taxes.
The orator himself is the fertile field, bearing the fruits of three successive
offices (3.22.1-2) (cf. Ausonius Gr. Act. 5.22: dei munus imitaris). Again,
Mamertinus affects to despise the fruitfulness of the Blessed Isles:
Quantula ista sunt, si deum auctorem consideres, munera! Nempe nobis
quoque, cum agrum non nostris manibus excolamus, haec illaborata
nascuntur.... provinciae, praefecturae, fasces sponte proveniunt.
(3.22.2-3)
The passage is a parody of other panegyrists' descriptions of utopias and the
golden age.
The third follows the reference quoted above to the nameless god (3.28.5),
who, when he gazes down upon earth, affects the elements by his facial
expression, shakes the world at his nod, and in gladness brings fair weather. It
echoes the anonymous orator who spoke before Constantine and Maximian in
307 (7.12.7-8; above under Panegyric VII). Claudius Mamertinus employs the
description in a way also familiar from Tetrarchic panegyrics. He says that this
is what poets relate (poetaeferunt) of the god, and he believes that it has been
proven by a recent experience in the human sphere. When Julian smiled upon
5 Compare Ammianus Marcellinus 21.10.2 (ut sidus salutare); Galletier Bude 111.9 notes the
similarity of expression. Cf. also 22.9.14, and see especially MacCormack 47-50.
his consuls the crowd went mad (3.29.1-3). This was not the last
panegyrist would employ such a theme: see below on Panegyric
67. But Mamertinus immediately retreats from what he has sa
himself in the joyful multitude to emerge as the honored consul. It
hint, and nearly lost amid the commotion. It may even be ano
inserted for the amusement of his emperor, who was himself an ex
genre of encomiastic oratory.
Throughout the rest of the oration, the panegyrist restrains
impulse caused him to liken the emperor, however ambiguo
supreme being. Although Julian receives divine guidance and hel
never leaves the human realm, and his immortality will be gain
through apotheosis, but on human terms. Claudius Mamertinus
careful of all the orators to represent the emperor as a human
concern extends even to the avoidance of imperial terminology
mentions the emperor's numen, divinitas or maiestas; caelestis never
the emperor, although Nazarius called Constantine's prudentia
(4.9.3). Divinus appears only three times; it modifies munus (3.16
bestowed upon the speaker, and two abstract nouns (prudentia
Nazarius used the adjective twice as often, thrice of the emper
Ammianus Marcellinus, although an historian, is more like a pan
Mamertinus. The historian describes the appearance of Julian
Constantinople (tamquam demissum aliquem .. . de caelo: 22.
Antioch (in speciem alicuius numinis votis excipitur: 22.9.14) as i
old hand at respectably moderate praising (compare Panegyric
summation of Julian's brief reign (22.9.1) also contains the requisite
tic elements (the horn of plenty, martial felicity).
One cannot know what combination of emperor, orator, and
responsible for Mamertinus' depiction of Julian, but one passage sug
the orator is wary of the listeners' prejudices."i His cautious ref
reinstatement of philosophy (3.23.4-6) reads like a pagan apolo
philosophy is linked with virtutes (cf. 3.19.3-21.5), literature, and th
applications of star-gazing. Mamertinus' genuine, if exaggerated
Julian's accomplishments aside, in terms of the vocabulary of th
the speech might be called an anti-panegyric.
Public expressions of ideas about the emperor's relationsh
divinity seem to have undergone a transformation in little over
until finally the emperor himself has lost the trappings of divin
remains god's chosen ruler who can rely on heavenly support. In
58 R. Pichon, op. cit. (n. 14) 135-136, explains that in the presence of the Ch
Mamertinus is silent about Julian's intended religious reforms. It was still too earl
speak of that.
92 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGFRS
and Theodosius issued the first anti-pagan legislation since the reign of
Constantius II;s9 by 389, therefore, there should have been no question about
acceptable convention. One would not expect Pacatus, whatever his private
convictions, to say that Jupiter had helped Theodosius to overcome Max-
imus.60 This is not to say, however, that an orator must invoke Christ and all
the saints. The time was not quite yet when bishops usurped the functions of
rhetoricians and poets, but in view of the scanty evidence on Latin panegyric,
changes had occurred. The gap of forty years between Nazarius and Claudius
Mamertinus is frustrating; Symmachus and Ausonius, however, are closer in
tone to Mamertinus than to anyone else. By the time it was Pacatus' turn, the
rule was that there was one god and that a very special human being was
emperor.
Panegyric II. A. D. 389. Pacatus to Theodosius. Defeat of the usurper

Maximus.
Pacatus says that the empire receives its share of divine aid through the
emperor (2.30.1-2). When Theodosius finally marched west to put down the
usurper, the divinity sped him on his way: cur non tuae publicaeque vindictae
confessam aliquam immortalis dei curam putemus adnisam ?" In both passages
the orator is most interested in the empire and its citizens, not in Theodosius:
the emperor, as agent of the deity, has restored the republic.
Pacatus also glorifies the emperor alone, apart from the deity, in a series of
images now tediously familiar. The Romana lux arose in the east when
Theodosius became emperor and restored life to the dying state (2.3.2-3);
although it might have been better had he received imperial power earlier, it
really does not matter: Parum interest quando coeperit quod terminum non
habebit (2.7.6).62 The emperor knows god's intentions (2.19.2) - he is not the
first emperor to have been so honored - but when Pacatus describes this
process of secret-sharing he makes the emperor the deity's partner (or vice
versa).63 It is only a small step from "partnership with" to "partaking of", or
so it seems. Pacatus resurrects the idea of perpetual motion and eternity:
5 Codex Theodosianus 16.10.7 banning sacrificies; 16.7.1 on apostates; see also 16.7.2 (A. D.
383).
60 He mentions the ancient Romans laying the triumphal laurels in the lap of Jupiter Optimus
Maximus (2.9.5), but it is part of a comparison between Theodosius and the ancient Romans.
61 2.39.4&5, where the orator justifies this claim.
62 Cf. 12.26.5. I wonder, by the way, if Pacatus, if he was a Christian (see n. 68), would have
made a statement of this kind about eternity, even in a context of the eternity of the emperor, not
of God. Any Christian of this period should have been sensitive to dogmatic questions. That
which is eternal ought not to have a beginning, but cf. Eusebius LC 6.3.
63 Deo consorte 2.6.4; illi maiestatis tuae participi deo . . . tibi aliqua vis divina subservit 2.18.4.
Galletier remarks (Bude 111.116), "On notera que c'est la divinite qui est au service de l'empereur
de meme qu'elle a sa part de la majeste imperiale." Perhaps the deus consors is the divine comes
under another name.
Gaudent profecto perpetuo divina motu et iugi agitatione se vegetat

aeternitas et, quicquid homines vocamus laborem vestra natura est. Vt
indefessa vertigo caelum rotat, ut maria aestibus inquieta sunt, ut stare
sol nescit, ita tu, imperator, continuatis negotiis et in suo quodam orbe
redeuntibus semper exercitus es. (2.10.1)
The plural vestra natura contrasts with homines; it refers to divina, aeternitas,
imperator(es).64 The orator defines the emperor as someone who, by nature, is
different from human beings: Theodosius' incessant movement is a natural
phenomenon. The emperor is also a numen. A man who is refused an audience
may at least be consoled by having seen his ruler: ferat tamen visi numinis
conscientiam (2.21.2).65 He has had, as it were, a glimpse of heaven.
Pacatus mentions the emperor's knowledge of heavenly secrets in a context
of philosophical speculation prompted by his admiration for the emperor's
physical beauty: augustissima quaeque species plurimum creditur trahere de
caelo (2.6.3; cf. 6.17.3). The orator professes not to know whether the divinus
animus chooses or creates a beautiful habitation for itself; Theodosius shares
this secret with the god. Pacatus states that he will say only what is intelligible
to a man and proper for him to put into words:
talem esse debere qui gentibus adoratur, cui toto orbe terrarum privata
vel publica vota redduntur, a quo petit navigaturus serenum, pereg-
rinaturus reditum, pugnaturus auspicium. (2.6.4).
Here is an emperor of whom people are said to make requests which ought to
be addressed to a god,66 but Pacatus has so shamelessly copied from his
predecessors that he gives Theodosius that title as well: Cedat his terris terra
Cretensis parvi Iovis gloriata cunabulis et geminis Delos reptata numinibus et
alumno Hercule nobiles Thebae. Fidem constare nescimus auditis: deum dedit
Hispania quem videmus (2.4.5).67 That deum dedit translates Theodosium
" Of these, Pacatus addresses only the emperor, and vestra natura = tibi eadem ac illis natura
est. The plural ad jective happens also to give him a better clausula (-u---), but Pacatus did not
write vestra for the sake of the rhythm alone. The vestra may also embrace, as a politeness,
Valentinian II and Arcadius; it is still linked with divina and aeternitas.
65 Beranger 253, however, cites only 2.30.2 for the numen in this speech.
"' Liebeschuetz 302 finds the passage, "which seems to imply full worship of the emperor,"
"astonishing, coming from a Christian." He characterizes it, however, as "an expansion of a
traditional theme," citing Pliny Pan. 4.4. The expansion is considerable; there is nothing like this
statement in any of the other panegyrics. Pliny's description (cuius dicione nutuque maria terrae,
pax bella regerentur - I do not know the source of L's punctuation of this passage [comma after
pax]) is of the commander-in-chief: Trajan rules the land and seas as head of the army and navy.
Hie is not in charge of the weather.
" Compare 10.2.5: Finguntur haec de Iove, sed de te vera sunt, imperator; 11.10.5: non
opinione traditus sed conspicuus et praesens luppiter; 4.15.1-7 (Castor and Pollux compared to the
heavenly armies; imitated at 2.39.4). A. Lippold, Historia 17 (1968) 245, uses the passage from
Panegyric II as proof that the orator had doubts about the (pagan) gods' existence. The author(s)
makes it no easier. The orator is careful to say tha

about these pagan gods, although Theodosius is
which quem videmus is an equivalent). Pacatus has lifted the sentiment,
including the scepticism reserved for stories of the gods' infancy, directly from
the tenth and eleventh panegyrics. Theodosius seems not to have minded the
attribution. Perhaps he did not have to countenance it in person: the oration
extends to 39 pages, a third again longer than Nazarius', and may have
undergone expansion before publication.
One may suppose that in Pacatus' audience were many sympathetic to
pagan practices. As to the religious convictions of the orator himself, there is
little agreement,68 although he advocates religious toleration. One of Maximus'
worst crimes was religionis iniuria, to be partner to the persecution of the
Priscillianists, in which the charge was nimia religio et diligentius culta
divinitas (2.29.3-4). This is the only reference to Christianity in the speech.
Twice Pacatus mentions other religious habits, turning toward the east to
worship (2.3.2: divinis rebus operantes)69 and the description of Theodosius'
reception by the city of Haemona (2.37.4). A crowd of the nobility poured
forth: conspicuos veste nivea senatores, reverendos municipali purpura flami-
nes, insignes apicibus sacerdotes - the only things lacking are the simulacra
deorum)'0 The title of flamen municipalis remained an honorary one, like
senator, for members of the upper class into the fifth century.7' Pacatus says
that the nobiles of Haemona support Theodosius. This statement has more
political than theological importance, although the description of nobiles as
senatores, flamines, and sacerdotes72 hints at Pacatus' sympathies.
Pacatus assures Theodosius that the western provinces are loyal to him.
Pacatus' countrymen in particular are glad that Maximus is finally dead
(2.24.6). Pacatus seems to protest too much. Three years later Arbogast, having
gotten rid of Valentinian 1I, set up Eugenius as emperor and invited the pagans
to rally round their cause. Many of them did.
of X and XI must have had the same doubts. Denying or doubting the gods is still a compliment to
the emperor's more present power.
68 For a variety of opinions, see Liebeschuetz 301 (Christian), Beranger 253 (possibly a
Christian); R. Etienne, Bordeaux Antique (1962) 281 (tolerant, not a Christian); Pichon, op. cit.
(n. 14) 147 (neither Christian nor pagan in an obvious way; purposely vague); Galletier, Bude
111.51 (old-fashioned pagan); Ensslin, SB Munich (op. cit. n. 4) 64 (pagan).
69 Pichon, op. cit. (n. 14) 147-148, dismisses this as insignificant. The expression Vestale
sec-retum (2.21.3) is a figure of speech. To 2.3.2 compare Ausonius 1.2: gratias ago: verum ita, ut
apud deum fieri amat, sentiendo copiosius quam loquendo.
'0 Cf. 5.8.4 where, however, the orator does not mention priests.
' 0. Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften (1913) 503-504.
72 A sacerdos, unlike a flamen, was definitely a pagan priest: see Servius on Aen. 2.863 and
Isidore Orig. 19.30.5: Apex est pilleum sutile quod sacerdotes gentiles utebantur.
Pacatus was not one of those who followed Eugenius in 392. After his
performance in 389 he was promoted, to Proconsul of Africa in 390 and in 393
to Comes Rei Privatae at Constantinople. Theodosius had found in Pacatus a
loyal adherent; the emperor rewarded the man who called him a god, but the
propaganda of the panegyric had little effect. Theodosius' acts and enactments
as emperor far outweighed Pacatus' efforts to commend him to the Romans.
After 390, no one could have doubted Theodosius' religious intentions. Nemo
se hostiis polluat, nemo insontem victimam caedat, nemo delubra adeat, templa
perlustret et mortali opere formata simulacra suspiciat, ne divinis atque
humanis sanctionibus reus fiat (Codex Theodosianus 16.10.10 of 24 February
391. The language of his legislation against apostates in 16.7.4 of 11 May 391 is
just as strong; compare 16.7.1 and 16.7.2 of 381 and 383).
Pacatus has given the Romans a view of the emperor with which they could
sympathize. Theodosius is like the best rulers of tradition: te ipsum qua ...
priscorum duritia ducum, castitate pontificum, consulum moderatione,
petitorum comitate viventem (2.20.5). The word pontifex points to a particular
religion only by the context. The orator feels that Brutus himself would
approve of the present emperor. The words prisci duces, pontifices, consules,
petitores all recall the Republican period. But Pacatus includes more recent
traditions as well: Theodosius is a deus, even the Persian king worships him
(2.22.5), scenes of his victories will decorate Roman temples (2.44.5), and his
subjects pray to him for help. A. D. Nock feels that the emperor could not
have appeared to anyone as a real divinity, for no one directed prayers to the
ruler.73 Pacatus says that people in various situations pray to the emperor.74
Whether they really did or not, the orator wants to say something that the
Romans find comfortable and familiar. Whereas the Romans of the first and
second centuries were appalled by an emperor who so far broke with
convention as to call himself dominus et deus, by the end of the fourth century
tradition required this very appellation: better deus than Christianissimus
princeps.75
Pacatus owes many of the themes in his panegyric not only to his being the
latest in a long line of official orators. He has taken some of his ideas
particularly from the traditions of the earlier panegyrists, who spoke before
A. D. Nock, JRS 37 (1947) 104, HTR 45 (1952) 241; Fishwick, HTR 62 (1969) 366.
74 Mention of soldiers asking for the emperor's auspicium makes the other two kinds of request
seem almost ordinary.
" A. Alfoldi, CAH 12.194, observes, "This theological transfiguration of the person of the
emperor and, even more so, his direct deification, had originally been in sharp conflict with the old
humanistic conceptions and, above all, with the mentality of the Senate. Now, however, the
opposition of Christianity made the worship of the emperor a part of the policy of the patriotic
conservatives, and so it remained until paganism had drawn its last breath."
Maximian and during the early reign of Co

and divinitas do not intrude in the panegyrics of 321 and 362, and even
maiestas had all but disappeared. Pacatus, however, has reinstated the numen
and maiestas as attributes of the emperor.77 The orator cannot, given the date
of the speech, emperor, and quantity of material,"8 dwell on such themes; their
inclusion is enough.
III
The men who praised the emperors had considerable freedom of choice, and
despite their 'modest' opinions of their own speaking ability, they were not
stupid provincials who understood little about the emperor's policies. Neither
were they summoned to the court to have their speeches dictated to them.
While they were sure to give adequate coverage to the emperor's successes at
home and in the field, and reproduced accurately enough the present
emperor s version of his relationship with colleagues and would-be colleagues,
the degree to which they magnified the emperor's person was left to the
inclination of each speaker. The authors of IL, VI, X and XI equate various
emperors with gods and/or call an emperor deus, without abandoning the
themes of divine selection and the emperors' continued support of the official
deities (in VI, X and XI). The language of the eighth panegyric assumes an
imperial divinity which the speaker does not emphasize. Eumenius, Nazarius,
and the authors of V and VII see the emperors as recipients of divine favor who
enjoy a special relationship with the god(s). The emperors themselves drew
attention to this favor on their coinage, but despite Nock's conclusion that the
divine comes is a protector, attached to the throne and not to the individual
ruler,79 Diocletian and Constantine stressed their personal relationships with
Jupiter and Sol respectively. A relationship which develops into identity comes
closest to the ideas about the emperors in Panegyrics VI, X and XI, the three in
which imperial divinity is best defined. This notion and that of rule by divine
grace are worlds apart. The representation of an emperor's divinity, or the lack
of it, and the degree to which an orator may or may not forget the mortality of
the emperor, depended upon the orator himself as much as upon the
circumstances and the emperor. One panegyrist preferred to dwell upon the
" Deus: 10.2.1, 6.22.1; perpetual motion: 11.3.1-8, 12.22.1-2; vota: 10.6.5.
" Divinitas, strictly speaking, has disappeared, although Pacatus unites divina, aeternitas, and
Theodosius at 2.10.1.
" Theodosius' life supplies adequate material for the family, upbringing, deeds and habits
sections, not to mention the comparison by contrast with his enemy Maximus: the apology, both
for the Gauls and for Theodosius, is the essential element.
79 A. D. Nock, JRS 37 (1947) 102-116.
principle of divine selection and protection, another, to equate emperor and

god.80
This variety in the panegyrics demonstrates that the rulers tolerated a wide
range of opinions, but few agree as to whether this toleration was of belief or
of disbelief: did any emperor want to be worshipped as a god? William Seston
believes that the divinity was associated with the office,8' and his theory is that
Diocletian took over the Persian idea of kingship which receives divine
support.82 Perhaps Persian theologians could have explained the difference
between the actual king and the divine power behind the throne, but the usual
Greek or Roman assertion was that the Persians worshipped their own kings.
Two of the panegyrists show that this was what they considered the general
belief. The orator of 289 says, rex ille Persarum, numquam se ante dignatus
hominem confiteri, fratri tuo supplicat (10.10.6). A century later, Pacatus, in
what must be conscious imitation, affirms: Denique ipse ille rex eius
dedignatus antea confiteri hominem iam fatetur timorem et in his te colit
templis in quibus colitur (2.22.5). I cannot believe that Diocletian, of all his
contemporaries,83 was able to understand the subtleties of Mazdaean theology
so well that he adopted the Persian system in order to set his own government
on a more reasonable foundation. The author of XI certainly did not
understand the difference, if that was that Diocletian had in mind, for he says
that he is speaking on the day on which Maximian's immortalitatis origo is
celebrated (11.3.7). The occasion was the emperor's birthday, not his dies
imperii, and the orator affirms Maximian's divine nature when he says cumque
praeterea ingenitum illum vobis divinae mentis ardorem etiam earum quae
primae vos suscepere regionum alacritas excitarit (11.3.8); he goes on to speak
of Illyricum and the emperor's military training. The orator says that the
emperors were divine from birth.
Norman Baynes (see above n. 2) believes that Aurelian was the first emperor
to stress the election of the emperor by god, and thus he hopes to demonstrate
that there was no break between pagan and Christian ideas about the ruler's
relationship with the divinity. But it is not necessary to deny, solely for the
purpose of understanding the transition from paganism to Christianity, that
any emperor of the third and early fourth centuries portrayed himself as god.
Both ideas were current during this period, both appear together in Panegyrics
8 J. Rufus Fears, Princeps a Diis Electus (1979) 184, notes the political aspect of the theme of
divine selection, which "never became an indispensable element in imperial panegyrics." The
notion was most useful in fending off rival claimants or defending virtual usurpations.
81 W. Seston, Historia 1 (1950) 257-266.
82 W. Seston, Diocletien et la Tetrarchie (1946) 225.
83 Diocletian surprised one fourth-century (?) person merely by having quoted Virgil once
(SHA [Car.] 30.13.3-4). If this anecdote is an invention of the author, his surprise is nonetheless
plausible.
VI, X and XI (not to mention II). Pagan orators often ignored or de-
emphasized the notion of divine ruler, and most of their successors in the
Christian period did the same. Finally, the beliefs of contemporaries and near
contemporaries must count for something; that our understanding is superior
is not the point.84 The attitude of the eighth panegyrist may be indicative of a
general tendency to exalt the emperor at the gods' expense:85 in the end, the
gods become less believable than ever. For three hundred years the empire's
citizens had grown more and more accustomed to looking up to the emperor
as the single most powerful potential in their lives. The emperors, through
advertisement of their claims and powers, did their part in propagating the
faith. Romans swore by the emperor's genius (or numen), they honored him in
temples along with the gods, they became more submissive in the outward
manifestations (e. g. the court ceremonial) of their relationship with the
emperor, and - who knows? - some of them may even have prayed to him.86
In the twentieth century, it is hard to imagine delivering a panegyric with a
straight face. In the twentieth century, when it is unfashionable to believe in
the possibility or efficacy of divine intervention, and when attempts by
national governments to solve human problems appear futile, the phenomenon
of divine rulership might find greater acceptance if one were to read potestas
for divinitas.87
Liebeschuetz (pp. 239-240) observes that miracles, or supernatural func-
tions, were not expected of emperors. It was fortunate for a few blind men of
the first centuries after Christ that they were unaware of their rulers' inability
to cure them.88 Miraculous actions have great political value. In the third and
fourth centuries, the miracles required were less spectacular, for the benefit of
individuals only as members of a larger body: peace and prosperity had been
virtually unknown for some time. A reputation for controlling not only the
Fishwick, op. cit. (n. 9) 366, objects: "If Jews or Christians chose martyrdom rather than
compromise their faith by paying cult to the emperor, the theological error was on their part."
Liebeschuetz 239 argues from the silence of Lactantius against the importance of the ruler-cult. He
notes the survival of the language and court etiquette under Christian rulers. But only some of the
language survived: see above section I. Price, op. cit. (n. 17) 36-37, remarks upon the distinction
between sacrifice to the gods and to the emperors, a lesser (but still acceptable) alternative. For
other views, see E.-Ch. Babut, Rev. historique 123 (1916) 225-252; H. Mattingly, HTR 45 (1952)
131-134; H. Stern, JWI 17 (1954) 184-189. For ancient viewpoints, biased or exaggerated, see
Aurelius Victor 33.30, 39.4, 41.5; Eutropius 9.26.
8 See M. P. Charlesworth, JRS 33 (1943) 1-10; F. Burdeau, Aspects de l'Empire Romain
(1964); S. G. MacCormack, CQ 69 (1975) 131-150, for discussions of this development.
86 R. MacMullen, Roman Government's Response to Crisis (1976) 35.
87 See MacCormack 170-173.
B Tacitus Hist. 4.81 and Suetonius Vesp. 7.2 both report that Vespasian sucessfully cured
blindness: an auspicious beginning for the founder of a new dynasty. See MacMullen, op. cit.
(n. 86) 35-37, for further examples.
forces of nature but even the barbarians might seem to some t

supernatural.
The fifth, seventh, and ninth panegyrics differ from the four
two ways: their combined incidence per page of the word divinus is greater,
and their religious background is definitely pagan as opposed to vaguely
monotheistic. Of the two later panegyrists of Constantine, only Nazarius
avoids equation of the emperor with the deity as successfully as the author of
VII, and the monotheism apparent in panegyrics IV and XII cannot definitely
be attributed to the emperor alone. The author of X proclaimed Maximian's
divine aspect to Jupiter's detriment, Claudius Mamertinus emphasized Julian's
humanity to the exclusion of any notion of deity, Nazarius described in detail
the relationship between divine protector and divinely chosen ruler. Pacatus,
like most of the other panegyrists, found a middle ground. At one or more of
the many occasions graced by formal orations, the emperors, or their advisors,
chose or allowed all of these men to speak, and trusted them to say appropriate
things. Maximian, Constantine, and Theodosius each heard a man call him a
god. So far as anyone knows, none of these three emperors found the epithet
objectionable. Other men on other occasions said other things, but one cannot
always pay attention only to the others, or persuade oneself that because this
exists, that does not. There is no system and there never was. There is
circumstance, preference, and ambiguity.89
University of Vermont Barbara Saylor Rodgers
89 I would like to thank the members of the Department of Religi

Vermont for their discussion of this topic at a colloquium in April 1983
Z. Philip Ambrose, who read an earlier version of this paper and to who
for its improvement.
APPENDIX
Words for human and divine in panegyrics

Caelestis
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work caelestis sacer praeclarus
P.L. 10 14.5 - -
1 1 6.4: - _ 3.2
9 - 6.2, 13.1 _
8 4.1 - -
7 11.5 1.1, 3.3, 14.1 -
6 17.1 - _ 7.5, 17.3
5 _ _ _-
4 - - 9.3 2.6, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4,

14.5, 19.2, 29.1
3 _ _ - 10.1, 23.5, 23.6,
27.3, 27.5
2 _ _ - 6.3 (bis), 19.2, 27.3,
39.5
Symm.
Orat. 1-4 - - 3.5 2.23, 2.26
Aus.
Gr. Act. - 5.22
Combined with sempiternm
Incidence in the PanegyriciLatini: No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

Early 99.5 6 1
Late 110.5 0 14
II-IV 91.5 0 14
Divinus
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work divinus sacer praeclarus
P.L. 10 2.3, 4.2, 10.1:,

14.1 5.2 (bis), 8.2 - 1.1, 3.2, 6.5
11 8.3 5.1, 6.7, 9.5 4.4 3.8
9 8.2 3.2, 4.1, 6.2, 6.4, - 10.1
13.1, 15.5, 16.1,
21.4
8 1.1, 1.5, 4.3 2.2, 6.2, 7.2, 8.1 - -
7 6.1 7.1 3.3, 6.2, 6.5 -
6 15.4 - 21.5 7.5
5 11.5 1.3 - 10.2
12 4.5, 10.3 20.2, 26.5 - 2.5, 4.1, 4.4, 11.4,
16.2, 26.1
4 32.2, 34.2 3.3, 12.2, 29.5, - 2.6, 7.3, 14.5, 14.6,
35.3 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 17.1,
19.3
3 - 21.3 16.4, 27.1 14.6, 27.2, 28.4, 28.5
2 8.3t, 16.5t 47.3 3.6 3.2, 6.3, 10.1, 18.4,
30.2, 39.4, 39.5
Symm.
Orat. 1-4 - - 2.6 1.7
Aus.
Gr. Act. 2.7t - - 1.5, 2.8
* Combined with immorta/is. t Re
Incidence in the Panegyrici Latinn No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

Early 95.5 37 7
Late 110.5. 17 26
II-IV 91.5 13 20
Divinitas
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work divinitas pronoun imperium
P.AL. 10 _ _ _ _
11 2.4, 14.3 - _ _
9 _ _ _ _
8 - 2.1, 8.4, 13.3, - _

15.2, 15.6
7 - - 3.2
6 17.4 _ - _
12 22.1, 25.4 - - _
4 - _ _ 7.3, 13.5, 27.5
3 - D _ 7.2, 15.2, 28.4,
32.1
2 - _ _ 29.2
Symm.
Orat. 1-4 _- -
Aus.
Gr. Act. - 10.45 -
Incidence in Panegyrict Latin:: No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

Early 99.5 7 0
Late 110.5 2 8
II-IV 91.5 0 8
Maiestas
Emperor or Other Person Rome/ God(s)

Empire
Meaning
Work maiestas pronoun imperium
P.L. 10 1.3, 7.5, 11.2 - - 14.3-

11 2.1, 8.3, 9.2, 1.1, 5.2, 15.1 - 12.2 _
13.2, 13.5, 17.2
9 _ _ _ _
8 2.3, 13.2, 15.6 1.1, 1.6, 2.2, 5.3, - - 4.1
6.4, 13.1, 19.1
7 3.2, 9.6, 11.4, - 3.3, 7.2 10.5 -
12.4
6 1.4, 2.5, 8.5, 1.1, 21.1, 22.4 3.3 -
17.1
5 9.3, 14.4 - - 3.1 -
12 19.6 17.1 - 3.7, 2.4
15.1,
16.2
4 26.3 - 8.2 6.2 7.4,16.1,19.2
3 24.4 - - -
2 1.2, 18.4, 27.4 - - 21.3 _
Symm.
Orat. 1-4 1.5, 1.19, 2.32, 1.10 - 1.15
3.2, 4.12
Aus.
Gr. Act. 1.1, 2.7 - -
Incidence in the Panegyrici Latin: No. of Pages Emperor God(s) Rome

Early 95.5 38 1 4
Late 110.5 8 4 6
II-IV 91.5 6 3 3
104 BARBARA SA'Il OR Roix)(;u RS, Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini
Numen
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work numen pronoun imperium
P. L. 10 6.4, 11.2 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 9.1, - 11.6, 13.4

13.5, 14.4
l l 1.2, 2.2, 3.8, 10.4, - - 14.2
11.1, 11.2, 17.4
9 - 8.1 - 7.3, 9.4 (bis), 10.1, 19.3
8 13.2, 15.4 1.5, 5.4, 19.1, 21.3 4.2 -
7 - - 8.3 -
6 1.1, 2.1, 2.5 1.4, 13.3, 14.1, - 9.4 , 22.2
18.7, 22.6, 23.1,
23.3
5 - 1.3, 7.6, 9.1 - -

12 - 1.1, 5.5, 13.2, 19.1 - 4.1
4 - - - 7.3
3 - - - 3.2
2 21.2 47.2 - 4.5, 21.1, 30.2
Symm.
Orat. 1-4 2.32 1.22 - 2.21
Aus.
Cr. Act. - - _ 9.43, 4.63
These are listed under God(s), b

have been tallied under Emperor.
Incidence in the Panegyrwi Latin: No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

Early 95.5 39 8
Late 110.5 6 6
II-IV 91.5 2 5

Divine Insinuation in The 'Panegyrici Latini'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Divine Insinuation in The 'Panegyrici Latini'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Divine Insinuation in the "Panegyrici Latini"

Author(s): Barbara Saylor Rodgers

As a preface to the examination of individual works, a look at the

represent either by the English expression "your majesty," or by some other

totally debased that it cannot be used of a deity. Sometimes

12 Cf. 8.2.2 vestrae maiestatis ortus.

speeches the incidence is reversed, although not so disproportionately: 17 in

venerabilis, caelestis, aeternus, sacrosanctus. Almost without

Panegyric X. A. D. 289. Anonymous to Maximian."5 Rome's Birthday.

Once more the author slights Jupiter to praise

Panegyric XI. A. D. 291. Anonymous to Maximian. The emperor's birthday.

in the following section (11.3.1-8) their divine origin

Panegyric IX. A. D. 297/8. Eumenius to the provincial governor. Request to

his favorite expression is tanti principes (9.9.1, 9.13.1, 9.15.1&5). He never

Panegyric VIII. A. D. 297/8. Anonymous to Constantius. Dies imperii;

This orator uses inflated vocabulary more frequently than an

The gods appear thrice in the speech, twice

Panegyric VII. A. D. 307. Anonymous to Constantine and Maximian.

"' Beranger 248: "C'est la conception de la Rome classique."

turbulent conditions of the republic represent a spell of foul weath

Panegyric VI. A. D. 310. Anonymous to Constantine. Quinquennalia (and a

such a short space to justify the idea of rule

Panegyric V. A. D. 311. Anonymous to Constantine. Gratiarum actio for

Panegyric XII. A.D. 313. Anonymous to Constantine. Defeat of Maxentius.

Constantine a singular favor by revealing the divine will to him alone;

Panegyric IV. A. D. 321. Nazarius to Constantine. Quinquennalia of the

One of the highlights of this oration is Nazarius' two-page description of

Hearing that a supreme being inhabits the heavens, a Christian can t

Panegyric III. A. D. 362. Claudius Mamertinus to Julian. Gratiarum actio for

Panegyric II. A. D. 389. Pacatus to Theodosius. Defeat of the usurper

Gaudent profecto perpetuo divina motu et iugi agitatione se vegetat

makes it no easier. The orator is careful to say tha

Maximian and during the early reign of Co

principle of divine selection and protection, another, to equate emperor and

forces of nature but even the barbarians might seem to some t

University of Vermont Barbara Saylor Rodgers

89 I would like to thank the members of the Department of Religi

Words for human and divine in panegyrics

4 - - 9.3 2.6, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4,

Combined with sempiternm

Incidence in the PanegyriciLatini: No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

P.L. 10 2.3, 4.2, 10.1:,

Gr. Act. 2.7t - - 1.5, 2.8

* Combined with immorta/is. t Re

Incidence in the Panegyrici Latinn No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

8 - 2.1, 8.4, 13.3, - _

Incidence in Panegyrict Latin:: No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

Emperor or Other Person Rome/ God(s)

P.L. 10 1.3, 7.5, 11.2 - - 14.3-

Gr. Act. 1.1, 2.7 - -

Incidence in the Panegyrici Latin: No. of Pages Emperor God(s) Rome

P. L. 10 6.4, 11.2 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 9.1, - 11.6, 13.4

5 - 1.3, 7.6, 9.1 - -

These are listed under God(s), b

Incidence in the Panegyrwi Latin: No. of Pages Emperor God(s)

You might also like